Free Fall thread

https://www.uv.es/~pla/alteritat/911.htm

News articles pre 9/11 in the link. You see the Bush administration had plenty of info the attacks were coming and did nothing. The CIA knew two years before high ranking Al Qaeda/ Saudi and Pakistan terrorists had arrived in the United States. Why was the CIA silent about what they knew? The official media weak to explore this.

We have potential plotters and the names and faces should have been on every news channel, the month before 9/11.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I do
(I remain deeply skeptical since nothing remotely plausible has so far been suggested)

Why you skeptical Robver outlined why it not possible to have freefall during a natural collapse.

Do you not understand his post?

Stick to this and outline your objections. Robver post.

Sir,
You claim "I have never seen a explain how the presence of free fall indicates a conspiracy or a controlled demolition."
OK, one's not a "conspiracy theorist" or a "truther", but one doesn't like lies, and in one's discipline of superintending the forensic reporting of marine structural failures, one has always preferred to follow the evidence.
So here is your explanation, and in layman's terms for someone self-evidently quite unburdened by any real understanding of even basic physics, or structures. Please feel free to ask questions at the end.
Pure gravitational acceleration (PGA or free-fall) can only occur when a falling body is imparting none whatsoever of its kinetic energy to any other body. When that occurs in the collapse of a structure, even for a second or so, it is positively irrefutable evidence that the falling element of the structure was unaffected by any upward resistance for that entire period of time.
Today, as far as one knows, the only known technique of instantaneously removing all, or even part of the upward resistance in any syndetic static steel structure involves the pre-planned application of explosive cutting charges.
Therefore, when the upper element of any honestly syndetic structure ( ie. one with all structural components connected appropriately.) attains pure gravitational acceleration, even for a short period ( and, by the way, over 2 seconds is NOT considered a short period in the way of these things!) that event alone effectively 'proves' that the supporting structure must have been entirely absent for the full period of the PGA and, therefore, one must presume that some technique was employed to instantaneously remove that entire substructure. As the only technique known to most of us is the use of H.E cutting charges, then the irrefutable evidence of PGA would seem to point very strongly indeed to demolition as the most likely scenario.
Q.E.D.
One thing is self-evidently certain, and that is that the WTC7 collapse could not simply have been 'natural', as it is quite impossible for any "natural vertical collapse", however initiated, to attain PGA due to the energy that is required to expend in overcoming the upward resistance of the remaining lower structural elements.
Newton's 3 laws have, so far, proven quite irrefutable, and would seem to be an increasingly pesky nuisance to all those non-engineers so naively trying to explain free-fall in the collapse of WTC7.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

https://www.uv.es/~pla/alteritat/911.htm

News articles pre 9/11 in the link. You see the Bush administration had plenty of info the attacks were coming and did nothing. The CIA knew two years before high ranking Al Qaeda/ Saudi and Pakistan terrorists had arrived in the United States. Why was the CIA silent about what they knew? The official media weak to explore this.

We have potential plotters and the names and faces should have been on every news channel, the month before 9/11.

And all this was almost immediately leaked and known. The warnings they received, lying about WMDs, Iraq, kidnappings, torture etc. All happened. We knew about it very quickly. Whistleblowers all over the place. Same as Vietnam, Iran Contra affair etc. Washington is the leakiest city on earth.

Yet a huge conspiracy with x amount of people involved (hundreds or thousands) across x amount of industries and state bodies and countries and...19 years later, not one single leak or credible piece of information.

Also notice how he's throwing out more and more tangents rather than actually stick to the topic of the thread...

The Nal wrote: »

And all this was almost immediately leaked and known. The warnings they received, lying about WMDs, Iraq, kidnappings, torture etc. All happened. We knew about it very quickly. Whistleblowers all over the place. Same as Vietnam, Iran Contra affair etc. Washington is the leakiest city on earth.

Yet a huge conspiracy with x amount of people involved (hundreds or thousands) across x amount of industries and state bodies and countries and...19 years later, not one single leak or credible piece of information.

There a political influence that everyone listened to at the time because the country got attacked. All opposition voices were unheard. I don't believe it required thousands to pull off the demolition job. About 20 to 30 or less people could have done it and kept it classified and hidden even today.

90 percent of the event happened as you saw on TV- there just 10 percent of the background stuff that's hidden from the public and sealed.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What you mean how?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't believe it required thousands to pull off the demolition job. About 20 to 30 or less people could have done it and kept it classified and hidden even today.

Do you understand the difference between you rationalising something in your head, and something happening in reality?

Do you understand they are completely separate..

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Why you skeptical Robver outlined why it not possible to have freefall during a natural collapse.

Do you not understand his post?

Stick to this and outline your objections. Robver post.

But his theory contradicts yours.
He is saying that it wasn't nanothermite. You believe he is wrong.

Likewise, he probably thinks you are wrong as nanothermite cannot do what he says is necessary to produce a free fall collapse of any length.

Thermite of any kind cannot instantly cut anything. That's not how it works.

We also know than neither explanation is true.
Nanothermite has been shown to be impossible in a previous thread.
High explosives aren't possible because we simply don't hear the 650+ charges going off right before the collapse of the building.

So again, the explanation must be something else.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't believe it required thousands to pull off the demolition job. About 20 to 30 or less people could have done it and kept it classified and hidden even today.

That's ridiculous.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between you rationalising something in your head, and something happening in reality?

Do you understand they are completely separate..

Freefall is observable evidence

It not made up theory there is a controlled demolition, the engineering findings support that conclusion.

A major attempt to hide the freefall implications we have already shown you. It went from being a myth in Aug 2008 to something real and possible in the space of three months
When you look at their models there no freefall in the final stages of the collapse, this is hard physical evidence, NIST covered up later.

King Mob wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

It's not just ridiculous, it's completely hypothetical

We aren't just dealing with people dreaming up absurd situations, but they have utterly no proper evidence for them to boot

That's on the same level as "paranormal" or a "Bigfoot" discussions, yet we are dealing with historical fact here.

King Mob wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

Ridiculous is being kind.

20 or 30 people, 230 floors, in buildings that had their own postcodes, with 250+ tenants in them, hundreds of security guards and receptionists, thousands of locked doors, in the most populated area of the western world.

Its comedy gold.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Freefall is observable evidence

Your misinterpretation (or ignorance) of events is not they didn't happen

Again, Neutron stars don't make any sense to me, their properties seem impossible to me, that doesn't mean they don't exist

The world doesn't revolve around my perception (or misconceptions) of it. You seem to think it does..

The Nal wrote: »

Ridiculous is being kind.

20 or 30 people, 230 floors, in buildings that had their own postcodes, with 250+ tenants in them, hundreds of security guards and receptionists, thousands of locked doors, in the most populated area of the western world.

Its comedy gold.

Stacking "hundreds of tons" of thermite..

The below an actual quote from Neils Harrit

Niels Harrit: “We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.”

Russia Today: “When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?”

Niels Harrit: “Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!”

I can't even..

The Nal wrote: »

Its comedy gold.

Obviously you can not see the problem?

NIST version

Read Robver post., and he tells you what does happen during a free fall collapse across the width of the building (corner to corner)

Sir,
You claim "I have never seen a explain how the presence of free fall indicates a conspiracy or a controlled demolition."
OK, one's not a "conspiracy theorist" or a "truther", but one doesn't like lies, and in one's discipline of superintending the forensic reporting of marine structural failures, one has always preferred to follow the evidence.
So here is your explanation, and in layman's terms for someone self-evidently quite unburdened by any real understanding of even basic physics, or structures. Please feel free to ask questions at the end.
Pure gravitational acceleration (PGA or free-fall) can only occur when a falling body is imparting none whatsoever of its kinetic energy to any other body. When that occurs in the collapse of a structure, even for a second or so, it is positively irrefutable evidence that the falling element of the structure was unaffected by any upward resistance for that entire period of time.
Today, as far as one knows, the only known technique of instantaneously removing all, or even part of the upward resistance in any syndetic static steel structure involves the pre-planned application of explosive cutting charges.
Therefore, when the upper element of any honestly syndetic structure ( ie. one with all structural components connected appropriately.) attains pure gravitational acceleration, even for a short period ( and, by the way, over 2 seconds is NOT considered a short period in the way of these things!) that event alone effectively 'proves' that the supporting structure must have been entirely absent for the full period of the PGA and, therefore, one must presume that some technique was employed to instantaneously remove that entire substructure. As the only technique known to most of us is the use of H.E cutting charges, then the irrefutable evidence of PGA would seem to point very strongly indeed to demolition as the most likely scenario.
Q.E.D.
One thing is self-evidently certain, and that is that the WTC7 collapse could not simply have been 'natural', as it is quite impossible for any "natural vertical collapse", however initiated, to attain PGA due to the energy that is required to expend in overcoming the upward resistance of the remaining lower structural elements.
Newton's 3 laws have, so far, proven quite irrefutable, and would seem to be an increasingly pesky nuisance to all those non-engineers so naively trying to explain free-fall in the collapse of WTC7.

The NIST computer simulation is stopped at this time of the collapse. No freefall happened during their collapse due to fire.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Freefall is observable evidence

It not made up theory there is a controlled demolition, the engineering findings support that conclusion.

But the explanation you believe is not compatible with the idea of freefall.
Nanothermite cannot cause a building to freefall because it can't produce the instantaneous cuts required.

You are declaring "Freefall is observable evidence!" while also completely disagreeing with the notion of freefall.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A major attempt to hide the freefall implications we have already shown you. It went from being a myth in Aug 2008 to something real and possible in the space of three months
When you look at their models there no freefall in the final stages of the collapse, this is hard physical evidence, NIST covered up later.

Or, you're just wrong about those conclusions?

Impossible I know...

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Stacking "hundreds of tons" of thermite..

The below an actual quote from Neils Harrit

I can't even..

This is why conspiracy theorists don't want to produce a coherent narrative.
All of their theories and all of their evidence all contradict each other.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Read Robver post., and he tells you what does happen during a free fall collapse across the width of the building (corner to corner)

Again, you believe Robover's theory is wrong.

Why do you keep telling us to read his post when it disagrees with your theory and in fact shows that your theory is impossible?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Stacking "hundreds of tons" of thermite..

The below an actual quote from Neils Harrit

I can't even..

So lets say 200 tonnes. 30 people. Thats nearly 7 tonnes each they had to get into the building! And distribute perfectly at the exact points needed.

All secretly.

Now thats not to mentioned the hundreds and hundreds of security guards, police, receptionists, office workers, maintenance guys, thermite manufacturers, logistic companies etc that would've had to help and/or turn a blind eye.

The Nal wrote: »

So lets say 200 tonnes. 30 people. Thats nearly 7 tonnes each they had to get into the building! And distribute perfectly at the exact points needed.

All secretly.

At last count only like 15 actually did the planting according to cheerful. The rest I believe were the organisers behind it all. Plus maybe also the hijackers?

The Nal wrote: »

So lets say 200 tonnes. 30 people. Thats nearly 7 tonnes each they had to get into the building! And distribute perfectly at the exact points needed.

All secretly.

You guys are laughing stock, when your shown images that disprove a collapse by fire caused freefall.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You guys are laughing stock

Come on, man. You know that's not true.

You just claimed that 30 people somehow pulled off the secret demolition of 3 skyscrapers, plus the pentagon attack using tons and tons of secret magical thermite that doesn't even work the way you say it does.

Who exactly is laughing at us?

Keep it up it funny.

How does Freefall go ahead in that NIST image? Explain the science geniuses?

King Mob wrote: »

At last count only like 15 actually did the planting according to cheerful. The rest I believe were the organisers behind it all. Plus maybe also the hijackers?

Oh sh1t, sorry my bad.

So 15 people means 14 tonnes of thermite each, across 250 floors of buildings.

Amazing that they only needed 15 other conspirators for that sort of operation. It seems very unlikely.

Like, not one security guard asked "hey whats thats, where are you going?" Just 15 people walking about in restricted areas across 3 huge buildings with tonnes of thermite in 3 of the most heavily secured buildings in the world.

The Nal wrote: »

So lets say 200 tonnes. 30 people. Thats nearly 7 tonnes each they had to get into the building! And distribute perfectly at the exact points needed.

All secretly.

In three separate buildings..

And that's before they have to do all this
https://youtu.be/0jrUsKiu2CU?t=1974 (really is a goldmine of a doc)

Note the demolition experts reaction to the notion of the Twin Towers being prepped for demolition in secret

Edit: timestamp added

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Keep it up it funny.

How does Freefall go ahead in that NIST image? Explain the science geniuses?

I did.
It's the second post.

We know that freefall disproves your theory.
And we know that robover's theory isn't true either.
Why would we have to explain it again?

And yes, it is very funny that you think we're being laughed at when you just claimed what you claimed.

The Nal wrote: »

Oh sh1t, sorry my bad.

So 15 people means 14 tonnes of thermite each, across 250 floors of buildings.

Amazing that they only needed 15 other conspirators for that sort of operation. It seems very unlikely.

Like, not one security guard asked "hey whats thats, where are you going?" Just 15 people walking about in restricted areas across 3 huge buildings with tonnes of thermite in 3 of the most heavily secured buildings in the world.

Like Rob said.

Newton's 3 laws have, so far, proven quite irrefutable, and would seem to be an increasingly pesky nuisance to all those non-engineers so naively trying to explain free-fall in the collapse of WTC7.

NIST study broke no Newton laws either and they knew freefall was impossible in Aug 2008 and their FEA models show that.

Instead of admitting something else was placed in the building to remove 8 floors of steel support - columns and concrete and so on, they covered it up with a lie with words instead.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Like Rob said.

Again, you believe Rob is wrong. Rob's theory shows why your theory is impossible. Why do you keep supporting him?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

NIST study broke no Newton laws

Cheerful, we all know you don't actually know what Newton's Laws are...

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Like Rob said.

Some poster came in and made one post and now it's gospel to you - I'd say that's incredible, but it's par for the course

I am pretty sure one of us could create another name on boards, make up some technical sounding crap, post it in one of these threads and you would take it up as gospel, maybe it's already happened